Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 18924
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
string, string
Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ranjit Singh
F. A. No. 370 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [List of names]
For the Respondents: [List of names]
Selling residential plots without necessary permissions constitutes unfair trade practice, mandating a refund of payments with interest.
Headnote:(A) Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 - Section 6 - Sale of plots without requisite permissions - Appellant advertised a project but lacked necessary authority to sell, constituting unfair trade practice. The State Commission ordered a refund of Rs.27,00,000 to the complainant with interest of 9% per annum, quashing additional compensation for mental agony. (Paras 6, 11, 12)
(B) Deficiency in service - The Appellant failed to provide service as no plot was allotted despite payment, leading to the conclusion of unfair trade practice and deficiency. The issues of the case include the legality of sales without permissions and the absence of proper disclosures to the complainant regarding the project’s status.
Findings of Court:
The Appellant acted in violation of regulatory requirements, causing undue delay and uncertainty for the complainant.
Issues: The court addressed the legality of the sale of residential plots without the necessary permissions from authorities and the implications of these actions as unfair trade practices.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that lack of necessary permissions for selling real estate leads to unfair practices, and such irregularities cannot be rectified even with subsequent approval notifications.
Result: Appeal partly allowed, directing refund with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. non-availability of permissions for selling residential plots constitutes unfair trade practices. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court observed distinctions regarding permissions and the implications of unfair trade practices. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. the court ordered the refund of the complainant's amount with regulatory interest. (Para 11 , 12) |
1. The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 7.8.2017 in CC No. 109 of 2017.
2. The brief admitted facts of the case are that Appellant had advertised a project under the name and style of Palm Springs situated at Mullanpur, Garibdas, New Chandigarh, Punjab for sale of 300 sq. yds. of residential plot at basic sale price of Rs.54,00,000. The complainant booked a residential plot in the said project. On various dates, undisputedly, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.27,00,000 to the Appellant but no residential plot had been allotted to him despite waiting for several years. The complainant learnt that at the time when the project was advertised, the Appellant did not have requisite permission from the concerned authorities to sell the plot and being aggrieved, he filed the complaint.
3. In its written version, the Appellant had not disputed that at the time when the project was launched and the application for residential plots were invited, they did not have the requisite permission from PAPRA and it was granted to them in the year 2017. It was, however, contended before the State Commission that since the permission had been granted and relate back to the original date and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any unfair trade practice on their part. It was submitted that it was the complainant who had defaulted in making the payment and executing the Builder Buyer Agreement.
4. Parties led their evidences before the State Commission and the State Commission after going through the evidences of the parties and hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel and perusing the record found the Appellant deficient in providing the service and, therefore, directed refund of deposited amount to the complainant.
5. The State Commission vide impugned order has disposed of 11 complaints and it had taken the facts of complaint bearing No. 103 of 2017 titled as Harjit Kaur v. Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., as a lead case and all these 11 complaints were taken for consideration together by the State Commission because the facts and circumstances in all these cases were identical except few things like dates and amounts. It has held as under :
"15. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by Counsel for the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that all the complaints, referred to above, are liable to be partly allowed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
There is no dispute that the complainant purchased one residential plot, measuring 250 square yards @ Rs.18,000 per square yards, in resale from one Seema Rani, original allottee, in a project, launched by the opposite party, namely 'Palm Garden' situated at Mullanpur, New Chandigarh, Punjab, vide application acknowledgment dated 4.2.2013 Annexure C - 3, for total sale consideration of Rs.45 lacs. It is also not disputed, that after its satisfaction, the opposite party, transferred the said plot, in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, on demand raised by the opposite party, the complainant paid another amount of Rs.9 lacs, vide cheque dated 21.2.2014 and Rs.6,75,500 vide cheque dated 15.7.2014. There is no dispute that when this complaint was filed, the complainant had already paid an amount of Rs.34,25,000. It is also not seriously disputed that the complainant was relocated in another part of mega project, named as 'Palm Springs', vide document Annexure C - 8 dated 15.10.2015, for which she paid an addition amount of Rs.5 lacs towards external development charges and internal development charges.
It appears that there was
